Cities banning baggy pants= Unconstitutional?

Question

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't freedom of expression synonymous with freedom of speech? Wearing baggy pants doesn't automatically mean indecent exposure. So can the local governments be sued, and how likely can this be overturned?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/17/baggy.pants.ap/index.html
-Baggy pants crackdown goes national-


Proposals to ban saggy pants are starting to ride up in several places. At the extreme end, wearing pants low enough to show boxers or bare buttocks in one small Louisiana town means six months in jail and a $500 fine.

Answer 1

What you'll discover is that most Americans are, in their hearts, fascists. They'll give up almost any freedom in exchange for security.

It's possible that this would fail to pass constitutional muster. You are broadly correct, general freedom of expression is implied in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Under the "rational basis" standard, the lowest level of review the Supreme Court conducts, the government would have to argue that prohibiting loose pants has a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. I'm not sure the ban would stand up. Baggy pants don't have much to do with gang violence, and while preventing gang violence may be a legitimate government interest, regulating the fashion sense of citizens certainly isn't.

But it's not enough for the ban to be suspect. Someone would have to actually sue to get the ban overturned.

Answer 2

It would depend on how it is enforced. If they are only 'cracking' down on pants which are low enough to show underwear or your bare butt, which is the part that you quoted, then no, it's not unconstitutional. This would fall under the laws banning indecent exposure.

If it's enforced for the sake of fashion alone, because local politicians don't like them, then it probably won't stand scrutiny in a court of law. This can be hard to prove that it's not indecent, however, as most of the baggy pants fashion I have seen seem to show off the boxers intentionally.

I, for one, hate the baggy pants, but would miss seeing criminals on COPS get run down easily because they can't run at all with their pants falling down to their ankles.

Answer 3

It isn't the baggy pants, they just look stupid, it is wearing them so low that underwear (note the word UNDER) in some cases, or bare buttocks in most, are visible. Nobody should have to look at a bare @ss hanging out of a pair of jeans. Some people don't have the sense they were born with, and it is unfortunate it comes to the passing of bylaws. People can always move if stupid pants are realy that important to them.
As an aside, have you ever watched some twerp with his pants hanging off his butt trying to get on the bus? It is hilarious, because he can't spread his legs enough to step up.

Answer 4

Well maybe instead of "Baggy Pants Law" it should be renamed to the "I don't want to see your butt-crack law".

I have two boys who giggle themselves silly when they see someone's backside. One even goes so far as to say "Just Say No to Crack". They have a great-uncle whose pants fall low and they even giggle at him at tell him the same thing. At least he will pull them up.

I find it extremely offensive when I am trying to eat dinner and someone bends over to sit down and I get the moon. I know people have the right to express themselves, so do I.

There are worse things out there that could be banned like hoochie-koochie shorts on a man. You know the ones I am talking about, half of his business is hanging out one side. I would really like to see those disappear.

Answer 5

Many ban fowl language on shirts. New Orleans bans masks. All ban public nudity. Women cannot go top less. The local people define what is meant by public decency and that is fully Constitutional. A national ban might be, however.

Answer 6

Good! Excellent! Outstanding! The Fashion Police need to apprehend every last one in outdated pants that don't fit. Besides nobody want to see their rear ends. Looks like JZ is the only one in fashion these days. Should we thank Beyonce for that? Where's Miss J or Mr Gunn?

Answer 7

Its racial profiling. Basically, its racist in general.

We already have a law for indecent exposure. If someone has their pants sag so much that it exposes himself, then slap that law on them. We don't need more laws or restrictions.

I wear my pant's waist-line right below my hip. I dislike tight pants because it makes my legs and mobility feel restricted. It makes me less agile. It doesn't look like it sags a crap load, only slightly which the law would still consider it saggy pants.

I swear, if I ever get fined for saggy pants, I will put on a dress and hold up a sign that says "I can't wear saggy pants? What about a dress?".

Anyways, the law will most likely fade away because it is highly likely they will get sued.

Answer 8

From what I just read, they're cracking down on baggy pants that expose areas that should not be exposed. Such exposure is considered indecent and has been covered by decency laws for centuries. Is your reading comprehension such that you can't grasp that fact?

Answer 9

it mos def is. i mean come on, sometimes people cant help it. banning baggy pants is taking us back decades. old geezers just want something to ***** about. one day when they all die off they'll be a new generation of pricks to say what people can wear. i don't see any petitions to stop sslutty girls from showing their cooches on the daily.
i honestly think this is a RACIST law. just like most of the laws we have today are. i honestly wish a revolution would come around to ban all laws made in a racist fashion!
im white btw so don't jump my *** about throwing the racist card!

Answer 10

I notion the factor of a hijab replaced into to duvet the hair? once you think approximately that as quickly as do mannequins have hair? the two i don't understand Islamic custom in this appreciate, very diverse threat, or it quite is purely fully retarded and a ploy for information.